Federal Judge Rules Against New York's Outdoor Gathering Restrictions
U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe ordered New York officials to not enforce any outdoor gathering limitations, if people are following social-distancing requirements.
June 26, 2020 at 04:42 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge on Friday pushed back against New York state's COVID-19 gathering limits, granting a preliminary injunction in a case that challenged restrictions on houses of worship.
U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe ordered New York officials to not enforce any outdoor gathering limitations, if people are following social-distancing requirements.
According to his order, the officials are also prevented from enforcing indoor gathering limits against the plaintiffs that are greater than restrictions placed on companies in phase two of the state's reopening plan. That provision is also stipulated on people following social-distancing requirements.
The order is tied to a case filed earlier this month by two priests and three Orthodox Jewish residents of Brooklyn. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of New York, listed Gov. Andrew Cuomo, state Attorney General Letitia James and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as defendants.
The lawsuit argued that social-distancing rules are not neutral policy but instead a "content-based regulation of First Amendment-protected activity." The litigation argued that while the defendants imposed strict gathering limits for some activities and groups, they permitted large protests over the death of George Floyd and the killing of Black Americans by police.
Limiting the size of synagogue congregations or mandating "drive-in" services for congregants unduly burdened the plaintiffs' religious beliefs, the suit said, arguing the mass demonstrations were "exempted" from such restrictions.
In his decision on Friday, Sharpe said the wide limits on executive latitude were exceeded.
"It is not the judiciary's role to second guess the likes of Governor Cuomo or Mayor de Blasio when it comes to decisions they make in such troubling times, that is, until those decisions result in the curtailment of fundamental rights without compelling justification," he wrote. He also noted that New York, at the moment, is well situated when it comes to the coronavirus infection rate.
His order states that offices and certain retail shopping operations were allowed to open in phase two at 50% capacity, but houses of worship are beholden to a lower indoor capacity standard.
Sharpe also pointed to comments from Cuomo in which he publicly expressed support for the protests. De Blasio has made similar comments too.
Cuomo and de Blasio, high-profile leaders in the state, could have just discouraged the protests by citing public health and stopped short of condemning their message, Sharpe wrote.
Instead of encouraging a "flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules," the leaders could have used discretion to suspend enforcement for public safety, he wrote.
"They could have also been silent. But by acting as they did, Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment," Sharpe wrote.
New York has permitted in-person graduation ceremonies too, if they are outdoors and have no more than 150 people, something that's an exception from limits on outdoor gatherings, according to the ruling.
"There is nothing materially different about a graduation ceremony and a religious gathering such that defendants' justifications for a difference in treatment can be found compelling," Sharpe wrote.
READ MORE:
Lawyers, Professors Push Back Against State Bar Group Call for 'Mandatory' COVID-19 Vaccinations
Some Big Law Firms Are Waiting to Reopen Their New York Offices
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFederal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Plan Suit
4 minute readRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
Trending Stories
- 1Trending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
- 2The Importance of Judicial Elections
- 3Ephemeral Messaging Going Into 2025:The Messages May Vanish But Not The Preservation Obligations
- 4Decision of the Day: Trial Court's Sidestep of 'Batson' Deprived Defendant of Challenge to Jury Discrimination
- 5Is Your Law Firm Growing Fast Enough? Scale, Consolidation and Competition
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250